Very very beginner question :)

[frowni]

Hey there,

I've a silly question(to most of you) to ask, so please don't mock me. I decided to buy camera(will be my first camera), a Nikon D7000, i've a good deal with it since D7100 is out there now. It comes with 18-105 VR lens, and the seller said that its a good lens. My question is,

18-105 lens covers all rangers between 18-105 right? I mean if i don't zoom at all, its 18, and if i zoom all the way, its 105, right??
So why would i buy 35mm or 55mm seperate lenses if 18-105 covers them all? This is my silly question. Thank you.
Can i get the same "Bokeh" with the 18-105 that people get with those 35mm or 55mm lenses?
I would really appreciate if someone can explain me this situation

 

[Benco]

The 35 and 55 are prime lenses (prime means fixed focal length), they cannot zoom but they have several advantages over zooms: They typically offer better IQ (less distortion, vignetting and they're sharper) and they're faster (capable of letting in a lot more light), they're also light, compact and cheap (compared to equivalent quality zooms).

Bokeh varies from lens to lens and you cannot adjust it, if say a 35 prime has smoother bokeh than the 18 - 105 then that's it, there's nothing you can adjust on the zoom to change that.

 

[SCraig]

Any zoom lens is a compromise on image quality for convenience. A prime lens, one that doesn't zoom, will normally have better optical performance than a zoom lens. Zoom lenses are also rather slow in that they have a rather small maximum aperture when compared to a prime lens of the same focal length.

 

[Dao]

Welcome to the forum!!!

Bokeh, usually refers to the quality of the out of focus blur. For example, creating a photo in which the subject is in focus while the background is out of focus. As you may already notice, some of the out of focus backgrounds are quite distracting or busy while some are quite pleasant looking and creamy. So people may refer that as bad or good Bokeh.

As for prime lens vs zoom lens, in general (not always true) it is easier for the manufacturers to optimize a lens design when the focal length is fixed. The more the zoom (wider focal length range) range the lens has, the harder to optimize it. Should it be optimized for the shorter focal length side, the longer side or the middle? If one is able to create a lens with great optical performance through out the zoom range, it will be expensive as a result. i.e. 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses from various manufacturers.

So back to the out of focus background issue. To "increase the effect" of the blur background, you can

1 Use a lens with a longer focal length.
2 Increase the distance between the subject and the background.
3 Decrease the distance between the subject and the camera.
4 Use a wider aperture.
5 "Photoshop" <--- LOL


In some situations, you are in a area where you are not able to use a longer focal length due to space limitation. So you will see a difference if you are taking a photo of the subject with the 50mm lens at f/1.4 vs 50mm at f/4.0. And that is another reason for a person to get a prime lens with a wide max aperture.

 

[Jad]

You will be happy with the zoom lens for most of your photography at this stage. After you get more experience and know what type of photography you like doing best, then you can think about a prime lens that fits your style. A prime lens for sports or wildlife such as a 300mm or 500mm can be very expensive. Concentrate on making images that reflect who you are and the equipment will follow. Good luck

 

[frowni]

So i should get the camera, learn it with its standard lens(and photogaphy) and move to prime lenses, if i have to
Thank you very much for the answers i really appreciate it.

 

[Judobreaker]

Not necessarily. Prime lenses are never a must, although some are nice to get.

Yes, I suggest you simply start out with that D7000 in combination with the 18-105, it's the same setup I started with and it'll work great for you while learning everything there is about basic photography.
Once you've mastered enough and feel like moving on you can try and make a choice for new lenses.
An easy choice would probably be the 50mm f/1.8 prime lens which is cheap and really nice.
However, other primes aren't always that cheap so getting a whole range of prime lenses may be rather expensive while there are really good zoom lenses out there too (of course also in various price ranges).
Popular zoom choices are 28-70mm and 70-200mm which are made in rather good quality (some are really brilliant) by various manufacturers (quality differs, as does price).

Just start shooting with your current camera and see where things lead you before choosing what kind of lens you're going to need next.

 

[KmH]

Most pros use both prime lenses and zoom lenses.

Back in the day zoom lenses generally delivered poorer image quality than prime lenses did.
Not today, because computers really help with lens design.
Of course, a zoom lens is like having a whole range of prime lenses all in 1 package.

Someone mentioned that quality prime lenses were less expensive than quality zoom lenses, but that does not apply for all focal lengths. There is a point where that reverses and zoom lenses are less expensive than primes.
A pro grade Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8 zoom lens is a $2400 lens. A Nikon 200 mm f/2 prime lens is a $6000 lens.

Stated another way, lens cost has a relationship to focal length and maximum lens aperture.

 

[SCraig]

Not necessarily. Prime lenses are never a must, although some are nice to get.

Agreed. Some people swear by prime lenses, others don't. Personally I don't use them because I feel they are too limiting for what I shoot. I have some primes for my old 35mm gear but don't own any for my DSLR bodies.

 

[ktan7]

You would need a prime lense ie. 35mm for lower aperture. A 24-105 do not have apertures that goes as low as 1.2. But for prime lenses, you have that luxury.

 

[Solarflare]

I've a silly question(to most of you) to ask, so please don't mock me.

Very unlikely to happen here.

18-105 lens covers all rangers between 18-105 right? I mean if i don't zoom at all, its 18, and if i zoom all the way, its 105, right??

Yes.

So why would i buy 35mm or 55mm seperate lenses if 18-105 covers them all?

Thats actually a great question, and reason to many discussions.

One of the main reasons is that a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 (or likewise prime lenses with large apertures) give you a lot more light, allowing to take pictures indoors or in less great light without needing a flash too early.

The other is the creative possibilities you get with having a much more open aperture, which not only gives you more light, but also a smaller area of sharpness. This is for example great for portraiture, when the background is unimportant and should be preferably completely unsharp. People actually love to use really expensive glass, like the 85mm f/1.4 or the 135mm f/2 on a full frame sensor, just to get that effect. Its of course even more drastic on medium format cameras.

Another reason of course is that a prime lens (i.e. a lens of fixed focal length) is smaller and more lightweight, simply adding to the sheer fun of photography.

Another reason is that for certain purposes, like very long lenses, tilt/shift lenses, or macro lenses, prime lenses are still pretty much standard. For example, focusing a macro lens is best done by moving the camera, so neither autofocus nor zoom is too important anyway. Also, macro lenses are by tradition extra sharp, a goal which again is helped by make them prime lenses.

And in many situations you can just "zoom with your feet". Whenever this is the case, using a prime lens is definitely no issue.

A very important aspect is also that different focal lengths do NOT, I repeat: NOT, just get you closer or more far away from your subject. A much more important question is the question of perspective.

A socalled "normal" lens, i.e. about 35mm on your APS-C size sensor, or about 50mm on a full frame sensor, will give you natural view. That means a lens like that will show objects in increasing distance in a natural decrease of size.

A long lens however will "flatten" your subjects, i.e. objects that are far away will not actually decrease in size as much as it would be natural. On the other hand, you can now keep your distance to your subject.

Wide lenses of course do the opposite - thats why you really have to get close with them.

A final reason is that you often dont really need more than a prime lens. For over a century, zoom lenses have been practically unknown. All the famous images of these times have been made with prime lenses. For example, Henri Cartier-Bresson reportedly only had a 50mm prime lens for his Leica, for decades. Or the recently discovered Vivian Maier used nothing but a "compact" (i.e. you cant change the lens) medium format camera (a Rolleiflex dual lens reflex camera) for her work. Theres quite a lot of fixed lens compact cameras out there (Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A, Fujifilm X100 and its successor X100s, Sony RX1, Leica X1 and X2, Sigma SD1 to SD3 Merill), which is probably also caused by the fact many people are used to mobile phone cameras now (which, due to size constraints, usually have fixed lenses).

Can i get the same "Bokeh" with the 18-105 that people get with those 35mm or 55mm lenses?

Bokeh describes the quality of the unsharp areas mentioned before. This is a property of the lens. My 55-200mm for example can produce gorgeous, creamy Bokeh at 55mm. Since its only f/4, this however needs more distance between subject and background than for example someone with the 135mm f/2 DC.

It should be noted that Bokeh is a question of taste.

 

[timor]

I don't think OP is still with us. His second post was his last activity here. Well, maybe he comes back.